Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files!

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But the Ramseys have written that they were prepared to be arrested in Boulder. They were at their friends' home, the Archuletas, when they watched Hunter's press conference on TV proclaiming "no indictment." Even Mrs. Archuleta told a pro-Ramsey reporter about that day, when Patsy suddenly rejuvenated with joy.

Seems I remember JR said they had a legal guardian in place to take care of Burke at the time, as well.

Now that I think about it, I don't believe that for one minute. If there is any truth in it, it was all for show. Staging yet another scene....

Yeah, they could play the victims then, "Oh look at poor us, we were prepared to serve time although WE DIDN'T DO IT!" Wah wah, poor you, all right! Never a thought for your poor little daughter whose body was rotting in her expensive casket.

They had a legal strategy if something like that would have happened, but I'm pretty sure they figured they wouldn't have to worry about it.

"We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

"Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

"Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

"What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

I haven't seen nor heard anything from her in eons and would really enjoy watching her squirm through this revelation!

"Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

"Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

"Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

"What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

I would think Charlie Brennan, as a member of the fourth estate, could file an FOIA to obtain the Grand Jury proceedings.

However, if we're getting a group together to file it ourselves, count me in!

I'm still gobsmacked that Mary Keenan Lacy had the nerve to state, in legal documents, that the Ramsey Grand Jury handed down no indictment. Whether Hunter signed off on the indictment means nothing. A true bill was issued by the Ramsey Grand Jury. It would be part of the case file.

Originally Posted by Tricia

I would have no problem going to Boulder but we need to find a decent lawyer willing to help because she/he feels it is the right thing to do.
We need to get solid legal advice before we do anything.

Guys this could be really big.

Oh cynic you very well could have blown this wide open.

I LOVE IT

Originally Posted by koldkase

Ideally, someone already nearby would be the best candidate to do this. I have NEVER understood why the media hasn't gone after this already. Charlie Brennan MUST know. Carol McKinley surely knows she has standing to do so, as should Peter Boyles, etc. Once someone goes to court to force the issue, then anyone should be able to make a request for the same materials if a judge ruled in favor of the FOIA--and it's Boulder, Co., so god knows what it takes to get anyone in the justice system to actually FOLLOW THE LAW there.

Here's the SCANDAL of it all: HOW MANY REPORTERS, PRIVATE CITIZENS, AND JERK-OFFS LIKE TRACY HAVE SEEN THE CRIME SCENE MATERIALS SMIT AND TEAM RAMSEY CONTROLLED AS PROPAGANDA FOR 14 YEARS?

See what I mean? It's not believable that NO member of the media would already have realized the sheer INJUSTICE of that alone.

Originally Posted by Cherokee

Tricia & KK, we were posting at the same time. I suggested Charlie Brennan, but I'm sure there are others who would file, like Doc Miller. I don't think anyone, who wasn't in on the Ramsey fix, knew they COULD file to get the GJ proceedings before now!

Ha ha ha, you hear that giant sucking sound? That's 16 years of Ramsey lies and spin going down the drain!

Bump.

Does Charlie Brennan read here, or did someone contact him?

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

Ha. Who knows what the army of people involved in this case do now. Most of us are half-way to a nursing home or padded cell.

And why not? I was reading Mary Lacy's "Mea culpa" press conference after she had to dismiss charges against Karr and lordy, that woman is either brain damaged or so corrupt she doesn't even bother to pretend anymore.

From the transcript Jaylles provided, Lacy was tap dancing as fast as she could trying to mitigate how she and her crack team...I mean team of investigators pulled off such a colossal blunder as arresting Karr. With their feet to the fire, answering point blank questions about how they really had nothing on Karr but his years-long, Tracey-coached confessions chock-full of evidentiary mistakes, Lacy said this:

Man [a reporter]: Speaking of the ongoing nature of your investigation, then would it be fair to say that is any involvement by John or Patsy Ramsey completely ruled out by your office? Are you committed to an intruder theory of the crime?

Mary Lacy: What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can.. You know, there’s these terms out there “Umbrella of suspicion”, we don’t use that. You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone. Where, like in this case the facts are so strange … you know… obviously the family was in the house at the time… the DNA does not match … now … so what we can say is … I think an expert said it’s… you have to look at stranger, male DNA in the underwear of the dead victim.

Kelly Cobeya (sp) CBS News : If what you’re saying that it’s true that the DNA could come from an external source and not the killer and all of the evidence is out in the public domain, can you or anyone ever get a conviction in this case? A conviction?

Mary Lacy: Well we have said for quite some time now that a conviction would come from a confession that we could verify through investigation or from a cold hit on the DNA because if we get a hit on the DNA which is in CODIS… and of course that’s the beginning of the investigation not the end, then certainly that person better have a pretty good explanation of how their DNA ended up in that underwear.

OH, what a difference a year can make....

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

What?

Originally Posted by koldkase

Mary Lacy: What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can.. You know, there’s these terms out there “Umbrella of suspicion”, we don’t use that. You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone. Where, like in this case the facts are so strange … you know… obviously the family was in the house at the time… the DNA does not match … now … so what we can say is … I think an expert said it’s… you have to look at stranger, male DNA in the underwear of the dead victim.

Mary Lacy said THAT?!!!

So does that mean Lacy was staying over with the Ramsey's on Christmas night in 1996?

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

So does that mean Lacy was staying over with the Ramsey's on Christmas night in 1996?

O.M.G.

I think you've solved it!

MARY LACY DID IT!!

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

A federal judge Thursday gave grand-jury witnesses permission to talk about their secret testimony, prompting the Ramsey family's former housekeeper to declare that Patsy Ramsey killed her 6-year-old daughter.

[snip]

The grand jury adjourned in October 1999 after 13 months. No indictments were issued. The grand jury, and then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, never issued a report about its investigation.

Hoffmann-Pugh, whose efforts to change grand-jury rules were supported by the Ramseys, on Thursday handed out a packet of what she said were six handwriting experts' analyses of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting samples.

[snip]

In the courtroom, Boulder Assistant District Attorney William Nagel argued that Colorado Criminal Procedure Rules 6.2 and 6.3 are very specific as to what can't be repeated outside the grand-jury room.

"Rule 6.3, the witness' oath, states "the testimony you are about to give ...' It's the testimony that can't be talked about publicly," he said. "The knowledge that was brought in to the grand-jury room can be spoken publicly.

"What can't be discussed is any information obtained as a result of testifying before the grand jury, any information obtained inside the jury room," he said. "They also cannot say, "That's what I told the grand jury'... or "That's what the prosecutor asked me' ... or "The grand jury focused on this.' That would be public disclosure of the grand-jury proceedings."

Daniel said 40 states as well as the federal government allow grand-jury witnesses to discuss their testimony. He said the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 struck down a Florida law that prohibited witnesses from talking publicly about any testimony they might have given, even if the knowledge had been gained prior to taking the witness' oath.

Daniel called the state's argument "fallacious" and ruled that the state's grand-jury rules violate the First Amendment only as they pertain to witnesses talking about what they already knew.

He said the rules also violated the "prior restraint" protection of the First Amendment, which he called "the least tolerable violation" of the First Amendment.

Nagel said it was his duty as a prosecutor to appeal any decision that goes against state law, and that he would begin preparing an appeal.

The Ramseys' attorney, L. Linn Wood, reached in Atlanta, said the ruling was only a step in the right direction.

"I'm interested in any information about the truth of the grand-jury investigation," he said. "I want the whole truth as to why the grand jury did not indict John and Patsy Ramsey.

"This ruling doesn't sound like it goes far enough for the basis of a claim" to ask how the grand jury voted, he said.

"If the grand jury voted not to indict, I don't think (former District Attorney) Alex Hunter has the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill," he said. "If the grand jury voted not to indict ... clearly the Ramseys and the public have a right to know."

Wood said he is waiting for Hunter to return from a Hawaiian vacation to subpoena him to testify about any grand-jury votes. He says he expects Hunter to declare privilege against testifying, and that Wood will file a motion in court forcing him to testify.

That train runs both ways, doesn't it?

Gosh, do you think Wood will send us a bill?

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

But the Ramseys have written that they were prepared to be arrested in Boulder. They were at their friends' home, the Archuletas, when they watched Hunter's press conference on TV proclaiming "no indictment." Even Mrs. Archuleta told a pro-Ramsey reporter about that day, when Patsy suddenly rejuvenated with joy.
Seems I remember JR said they had a legal guardian in place to take care of Burke at the time, as well.

Now that I think about it, I don't believe that for one minute. If there is any truth in it, it was all for show. Staging yet another scene....

RBBM: Yes, John's brother Jeff was supposed to take Burke if they were arrested.

The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

RBBM: Yes, John's brother Jeff was supposed to take Burke if they were arrested.

I have thought about this in light of the disclosure that the Grand Jury voted a True Bill to indict both Patsy and John.

Since we have information from the ex-wife of John's private pilot, Mike Archuleta, confirming the Ramsey's story about kneeling in front of the TV at the Archuleta's home in Colorado awaiting Alex Hunter's press conference, at which he announced there would be no indictment, I wonder if they already knew about that Grand Jury's decision.

I'm pretty sure, from what we have learned about how Hunter worked with defense attorneys so closely in his 30 years as BDA he practically was a defense attorney, that he would have informed them of what went on in the Grand Jury.

Maybe he told the Ramsey attorneys their decision "off the record." Or maybe he held that one card close to the vest. (Ha, right. )

Again, I'm only speculating based on Hunter's record; but thinking through how often it was planted in the media by Team Ramsey that the Grand Jury voted NO BILL, with not word one from any BDA to correct that HUGE DISINFORMATION campaign by Team Ramsey, it's just more evidence of the corruption of Hunter and Lacy in their duty as DAs, IMO.

It leads me to think Hunter may have told the Ramseys attorneys about the de facto "True Bill" vote. So that would explain why the Ramseys were prepared to be indicted, in spite of Hunter being in bed with the defense attorneys from the start.

Hunter's behavior towards the investigation--obstructing it from Day One, IMO--was so purely in favor of aiding the Ramseys in their flight from justice I have to ask why the Ramseys would have had any doubt after all the favor Hunter had bestowed upon them?

There were unknowns, of course, and the stakes for the Ramseys were high. Consider the people we know were not on Team Ramsey, who fought for justice for a murdered child. One had "infiltrated" the DA's Office, remember? Thanks to Steve Thomas' resignation and public letter to the governor of Co., Hunter was in fact forced to bring in a special prosecutor--Michael Kane, an "outsider" from "Let's make a deal" Hunter's usual clique. Michael Kane was not in on the cover-up, bless him, and while he wasn't able to convince Hunter to indict anyway--poor guy probably had no idea that "no indictment" was a done deal in The Republic of Boulder--Kane did get that True Bill.

And that must have put the fear of laws against murder into the Ramseys, even with all their powerhouse lawyers.

So maybe they did fear the proverbial wild card would lead to indictments. Steve Thomas and Michael Kane put that fear in them, I'm guessing. John Ramsey's hot hatred for Thomas showed so ever clear on the Larry King Show, even the most gullible had to wonder that no such enmity had ever been issued from Subdued John for the "intruder."

But by the same respect for the law, Thomas and Kane actually did honor the Grand jury code of secrecy. That opened up the path for lies and propaganda we had shoved down our throats by Team Ramsey about the Grand Jury.

Who started the rumors that there was "no True Bill" from the Grand Jury? Whether by word or deceptive, ambiguous body language, I don't know, but the innuendos and gossip were quoted from the Ramsey propagandists in the press, I remember that. Reported as rumor, it became "fact" spread by the Ramsey Spin Team. Lin Wood certainly ate it up and passed it on every time a camera turned in his direction.

Now we know it was just more lies.

I feel sorry for Pam Archuleta, who said her marriage was destroyed by the Ramseys, more or less, with her and her husband spending so much time dealing with the Ramsey's problems, solving their own fell by the wayside. If Mrs. Archuleta ever figures out what the Ramseys truly did, I hope the truth set her free.

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?